>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Bruce Perens >>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 1:31 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor
>>I thus feel all such things should be rejected, although the reason is >>entirely outside of the OSD. At the risk of arguing against my own interest (I’m a lawyer), requiring a submitter to retain a lawyer in license drafting and/or review is a potential barrier to entry (lawyers being expensive) and could come across as the process being taken over by lawyers (and possibly even a limited group of lawyers). I’m not sure that helps with the perception issues other are expressing in threads the past few days Drafting or review by a lawyer is no guarantee of quality, and I’d submit that drafting and review by a non-lawyer is not a guarantee of non-quality (pardon the triple negative).
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
